Isn't it about time we...

[WilliamJB]

ended this ridiculous war on drugs??? It would solve a number of the problems on the border, reduce crime substantially, and, maybe best of all, it would create a whole new industry that could employ thousands, the government could tax, and we could start clawing our way out of the economic hole we're in by increasing gov't revenues by billions. It worked when prohibition was ended.

 

[Deuce]

ended this ridiculous war on drugs??? It would solve a number of the problems on the border, reduce crime substantially, and, maybe best of all, it would create a whole new industry that could employ thousands, the government could tax, and we could start clawing our way out of the economic hole we're in by increasing gov't revenues by billions. It worked when prohibition was ended.

Yes.

(ten characters)

 

[Goshin]

ended this ridiculous war on drugs??? It would solve a number of the problems on the border, reduce crime substantially, and, maybe best of all, it would create a whole new industry that could employ thousands, the government could tax, and we could start clawing our way out of the economic hole we're in by increasing gov't revenues by billions. It worked when prohibition was ended.

Well, I find myself at least partly in agreement with you... which worries me no end. :mrgreen:

I have grave doubts about legalizing some of the more toxic and devastating drugs though, like crack, meth, and PCP. The former two have some really horrible effects on users, way beyond most other recreational drugs, and the latter is a peril to society because of the freakout-factor. I still remember a PCP freakout one night, back in my cop days, as a nightmare.

Pot, sure. No worse than booze. Regular cocaine? Yeah. Heroine? Well, that's a pretty bad one as far as the addiction factor goes, but it isn't toxic like meth and it doesn't make users especially dangerous, so I guess. Uppers, downers, wobble-around-ers, ok. :mrgreen:

Not only use but production, supply and sales have to be legalized, regulated and "brought into the light" if we want to reap real benefits in cutting the legs out from under the drug cartels and gangs.

 

[WilliamJB]

Well, I find myself at least partly in agreement with you... which worries me no end. :mrgreen:

I have grave doubts about legalizing some of the more toxic and devastating drugs though, like crack, meth, and PCP. The former two have some really horrible effects on users, way beyond most other recreational drugs, and the latter is a peril to society because of the freakout-factor. I still remember a PCP freakout one night, back in my cop days, as a nightmare.

Pot, sure. No worse than booze. Regular cocaine? Yeah. Heroine? Well, that's a pretty bad one as far as the addiction factor goes, but it isn't toxic like meth and it doesn't make users especially dangerous, so I guess. Uppers, downers, wobble-around-ers, ok. :mrgreen:

Not only use but production, supply and sales have to be legalized, regulated and "brought into the light" if we want to reap real benefits in cutting the legs out from under the drug cartels and gangs.

My oh my, Goshin, who knew we had so much in common

But yes, production should be legalized as well.

To be honest, virtually everyone I've talked to about this issue, from the far right, far left, and dead center, pretty much agree that at the very least, pot should be legal, and probably Cocaine, Heroin, and several other "hard" drugs. You're probably right about PCP, though.

My follow-up question, then, is, with what seems like a pretty universal consensus (for Buddah's sake, me and Goshin agree on this?!?), why hasn't this happened yet? It took prohibition all of 10 years to die, but we've been fighting this stupid thing since Nixon. What gives?

 

[Goshin]

with what seems like a pretty universal consensus (for Buddah's sake, me and Goshin agree on this?!?),

By Sun Tzu, von Clauswitz and Machiavelli, that is pretty remarkable isn't it? :mrgreen:

why hasn't this happened yet? It took prohibition all of 10 years to die, but we've been fighting this stupid thing since Nixon. What gives?

Two things, I think:

1. Even during Prohibition, drinking didn't have the same social stigma that drug use has. It was socially acceptible to a majority even when illegal. Drug use retains a stronger social stigma and more people feel that it is Malum in se rather than malum-prohibitum compared to booze.

2. The way legislation works these days. Back then, they recognized that the Constitution gave the Fed no power to ban alcohol entirely, and they required a Constitutional Amendment to gain that power. Many people probably viewed that as overstepping by the Feds.
These days, Federal power has grown and become pervasive. What the Fed lays paws on today, it almost never gives back to the hands of the People or the States. It's become a jealous monster that seeks to expand its power in all venues and jealously guards all authority it currently possesses. Getting the Fedmonster to yield on anything is like trying to take a juicy beefbone away from a Rottweiler.

 

[WilliamJB]

By Sun Tzu, von Clauswitz and Machiavelli, that is pretty remarkable isn't it? :mrgreen:




Two things, I think:

1. Even during Prohibition, drinking didn't have the same social stigma that drug use has. It was socially acceptible to a majority even when illegal. Drug use retains a stronger social stigma and more people feel that it is Malum in se rather than malum-prohibitum compared to booze.

2. The way legislation works these days. Back then, they recognized that the Constitution gave the Fed no power to ban alcohol entirely, and they required a Constitutional Amendment to gain that power. Many people probably viewed that as overstepping by the Feds.
These days, Federal power has grown and become pervasive. What the Fed lays paws on today, it almost never gives back to the hands of the People or the States. It's become a jealous monster that seeks to expand its power in all venues and jealously guards all authority it currently possesses. Getting the Fedmonster to yield on anything is like trying to take a juicy beefbone away from a Rottweiler.

Well, the second coming is clearly at hand, since I even agree with you about the federal government's role in maintaining the drug war. NB: In 90% of cases, I think the federal government usually does a better job of handling most issues than the states, or the people. This is just one of the 10% where this logic doesn't hold. It'll be interesting to see what happens in November when California votes to legalize the "demon weed."

Not so sure about your first point, though. Drinking certainly had a negative stigma comperable to pot today at the beginning of the 19th century. Both on the right and the left, though for different reasons. After all, it had enough support to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislature. Even the ERA in the 60s and 70s couldn't get that kind of support. I suspect if there was a movement today for a constitutional amendment to outlaw pot and other drugs, there'd be no way you'd get the votes you'd need.

In any case, I suspect the days of pot's (at least) illegality are numbered. Money always wins out and the potential revenue is just too tempting.

 

[soccerboy22]

Maybe not for the hard stuff like meth or coke. Well not right away that is, but for the love of God legalize pot.